NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YCS INVESTMENTS; YOUNGSVILLE DEVELOPMENT, INC.; YOUNGSVILLE HOLDINGS, INC.; EDENVALE HOLDINGS, INC.,

Plaintiffs

- Appellants,

v.
UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE; DAVID BERNHARDT, in his official capacity as Acting Secretary of the U nited States Department of the Interior; AURELIA SKIPWITH, in her official capacity as Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 20

- 15514
D.C. No. 4:19

- cv - 01899

- JSW

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Jeffrey S. White, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted December 11, 2020 San Francisco, California Before: TASHIMA, TALLMAN, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiffs

- Appe llants YCS Investments, Youngsville Development, Inc.,

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3. 

# FILED

JAN 20 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

Youngsville Holdings, Inc., and Edenvale Holdings, Inc. ( collectively, “YCS”) bring claims against the U nited S tates Fish and Wildlife Service (“FWS”) under
the Endangered Species Act (“ ESA ”) , 1 6 U.S.C

. § 15 3 1 et seq. , and the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) , 5 U.S.C. § 551 et seq. , alle ging that FWS’s actions have injured YCS’s conservation interest in the threatened bay checkerspot butterfly. YCS appeal s the district court’s dismissal for lack of standing. We review “a motion to dismiss for lack of standing de novo, construing the factual allegations in the complaint in favor of the plaintiffs.” WildEarth Guardians v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric

. , 795 F.3d 1148 , 1154 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting
Mont. Shooting Sports Ass’n v. Holder , 727 F.3d 975, 979 (9th Cir. 2013) )

. Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recite them here. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.
1. YCS must plead a concrete and particularized injury sufficient to establish standing for its four causes of action alleging that FWS violated the ESA and the APA when it approved the County of Santa Clara’s (“County”) Habitat Conservation Plan (“ Plan ”) and issued an Incidental Take Permit (“ Permit ”) for the bay checkerspot butterfly in 2013. Salmon Spawning & Recovery All

. v. Gutierrez , 545 F.3d 1220, 1225 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing Lujan v. Defs

. of Wildlife , 504 U.S. 555, 560

– 61 (1992)). The Plan covers approximately 460,200 acres of land, including approximately 2,150 acres of land owned by YCS , and controls3

construction and development in the area , as well as protection of endangered and threatened species, including the butterfly. YCS alleges that errors by FWS in approving the Plan and issuing the Permit “may result” in the butterfly population on its property “being extirpated. ”
YCS cannot show that FWS’s approval of the Plan and issuance of the Permit caused it any injury, because neither a ction affected YCS’s ability to conserve its
land or caused a loss of butterfly habitat on that land

. YCS does not allege that the approval of the P lan or the issuance of the P ermit has prevented YCS from continuing its research and study of the butterfli es on its land.
While YCS ’s payment for third

- party research may demonstrate a long

standing interest in conservation generally , YCS ’s alleged injury to its purported
conservation interest is too vague and speculative to establish harm

. See Pac

. N w. Generating Coop

. v. Brown , 38 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 1994). YCS has not ple a d ed a concrete and particularized injury sufficient to establish standing for its four claims regarding approval of the Plan and issuance of the Permit

. See Salmon Spawning , 545 F.3d at 1225 (citing Lujan , 504 U.S. at 560

– 61).
2. YCS has not alleged a cognizable injury for its fifth cause of action alleging that FWS failed to reinitiate consultation regarding the P lan and P ermit
under ESA S ection 7. See 16 U.S.C. § 1 53 6; 50 C. F. R. § 4 02 .16. YCS argues that
“new information”

—

the County’s refusal to permit YCS to build a residential4

development

— requires FWS to reinitiate consultation because the County’s refusal threatens the butterfly with extinction. However, YCS did not have approval from the County to develop its land when FWS approved the P lan and
issued the P ermit in 2013, and YCS still l acks approval today. T he only new information is YCS’s own decision to stop conserving its land. Because YCS has
itself created the new circumstance alleged , it lacks a cognizable injury for its fifth
cause of action

. See 16 U.S.C. § 1536 ; 50 C.F.R. § 4 02.16; Clapper v. Amnesty
Int’l USA , 568 U.S. 398, 416 (2013) ( self

- inflicted harm cannot satisfy standin g requirements )

. AFFIRMED.